Active Users:1209 Time:23/11/2024 04:30:31 AM
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause Joel Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
It is one thing to say churches that forbid homosexuality should not perform homosexual marriages and quite another to say the federal government should not ALLOW them. For my money, any constitutionally protected right places the burden of proof on the federal government to show the nations highest law is not violated by inferior ones (for conservatives reading along: Yes, that goes for the Second Amendment, too; licensing and registering guns just like cars is fine, but banning any or all is not.) Whether marriage is a right or privilege is immaterial to the Equal Protection Clauses requirement state and federal law treat all Americans equally, and the DoMA segregated marriage as surely as miscegenation laws did.

The timing, however, is perfectly awful; much as with the fight Obama picked with the Catholic Church over contraception, it will not bring anyone to the polls to thank him, and will bring many to the polls to rebuke him. Pity they could not have deliberated another three weeks or so.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 902 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 256 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 711 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 467 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 714 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 637 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 504 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 609 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 572 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 589 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 517 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 548 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 257 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 248 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 252 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 505 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 481 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 502 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 557 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 715 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 626 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 596 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 559 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 537 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 538 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 581 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 522 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 536 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 505 Views

Reply to Message